P. v. Porter









Filed 3/22/17 P. v. Porter CA1/3







NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JARVIS DANEY PORTER,
Defendant and Appellant.



A148618

(Solano County
Super. Ct. No. VCR222995)


Following a preliminary hearing held on February 18, 2015, the Solano County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant Jarvis Daney Porter with the felony offense of assault on his fatherby means likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).[1]) The information included an allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
On April 1, 2015, the criminal proceedings were suspended after defendant’s trial counsel informed the court that he had a doubt as to defendant’s competency to stand trial. (§ 1368.) Four weeks later, on April 28, 2015, the trial court declared defendantnot competent to stand trial and several months later on August 31, 2015, the trial court reinstated the criminal proceedings after explaining its reasons for declaring that defendant’s competency had been restored.
On September 23, 2015, defendant’s trial counsel filed a non-statutory motion to set aside the information on the ground defendantwas incompetent to stand trial at the time of the preliminary hearing. The trial prosecutor opposed the motion. Following submission of the motion on the papers filed by counsel, the trial court denied the motion after giving its reasons for findingdefendant had failed to meet his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he was incompetent to stand trial at the time of the preliminary hearing.
At a jury trial, defendant’s fathertestified concerning the circumstances of the assault. A security guard testified hewitnessed defendant assault his father and called 911.A doctor testified he treated defendant’s father for a fractured and displaced cheekbone, and for fractures on his sinus walls. On the second day of the trial, the jury found defendant guilty of assault, and, found true the sentence enhancement allegation of inflicting great bodily injury.
On June 7, 2016, at sentencing, the trial court explained its reasons for both denying defendant’s request for probation and sentencing him to an aggregate term of five years to be served in state prison, consisting of two years (the lower term) on the assault conviction, plus three years for the great bodily injury sentence enhancement. Defendant was awarded 558 days of credit for time served including time in the hospital during his competency restoration.
Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and asks us to independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3 436 (Wende). As required under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124, we affirmatively note appellate counsel has informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief and he has not filed such a brief. We have independently examined the entire record in accordance with Wende, and agree with appellate counsel that there are no issues warranting further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


_________________________
Jenkins, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Pollak, Acting P. J.


_________________________
Siggins, J.




People v. Jarvis Daney Porter, A148618



Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com


[1] All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.